Amendment_01.doc

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION C - DESCRIPTIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS

The following have been added by full text:

MONTANA DEQ LICENSING REQMNT

MONTANA DEQ LICENSING REQUIREMENTS

Identified awardee of contract will be required to obtain all required Montana DEQ Licensing and Certifications to conduct work within the State of Montana for UST system installation, repair, and removal in accordance with all Montana DEQ regulations at no additional cost to the government. If apparent awardee is unable to secure such requirements within 30 calendar days from award, the government reserves the right to cancel award at no cost to the government and proceed with award of contract to next identified possible awardee from the established pool of interested parties (all companies that submitted proposal) taking price, technical, and past performance into consideration.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

M-8-PPT_Rev 8 Aug 11 EVALUATION CRITERIA (PPT with Technical Factors)

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This is a competitive best value source selection in which competing offerors' past performance history will be evaluated on a basis approximately equal to cost or price considerations. By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. All technically acceptable offers shall be treated equally except for their prices and performance records. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

A. Price Evaluation. Initially, offers shall be ranked according to price, including any option prices if applicable. An offeror’s proposed prices will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in Section B and Continuation Schedule B (if applicable) by the proposed unit price for each Contract Line Item Number or Subcontract Line Item Number to confirm the extended amount for each. When applicable, the price evaluation adjustment for HUBZone small business concerns will be applied in accordance with FAR 52.219-4, Notice of Price Evaluation Preference for HUBZone Small Business Concerns, to arrive at an evaluated price. The price evaluation will document for the offers evaluated under the following subparagraph B, the reasonableness and affordability of the proposed total evaluated price.

B. Technical Acceptability. Next, the government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals submitted by the lowest priced offerors on a pass/fail basis, assigning a rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable. If the lowest priced offeror is found to be technically unacceptable, the government shall stop evaluation of the proposal and move on to the evaluation of the next lowest offeror. The proposals shall be evaluated against the following subfactors:

Technical Factor 1: Valid UST System Installer/Remover State of Montana License

PASS: Contractor or subcontractor performing UST system work has presented current and valid UST system installer/remover licensing within the offeror’s respective state of licensing or residence.

FAIL: Contractor or subcontractor performing UST system work did not presented current and valid UST system installer/remover licensing within the offeror’s respective state of licensing or residence.

C. Performance Confidence Assessment. The contracting officer shall seek recent and relevant performance information on the lowest priced technically acceptable offeror based on (1) the past efforts provided by the offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources. The government reserves the right to seek information on higher priced offerors if none of the lower priced technically acceptable offerors receive a “Substantial Confidence” performance confidence assessment.

D. Relevant performance includes performance of efforts involving work as identified below in the “Focus Areas” that involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the government to assess the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements based on the offeror’s demonstrated past performance. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, or Unknown Confidence as defined in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5. Past performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will/will not be rated as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror. Offerors with no recent/relevant performance history or if the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating "Unknown Confidence," meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably (neutral).

FOCUS AREAS

Focus Area 1: Monitoring/Leak Detection Systems Relevant: Contractor has 5 or more years experience in trouble-shooting and installing Veeder-Root, or similar, fuel monitoring and leak detection systems.

Somewhat Relevant: Contractor has between 3 to 4 years experience in trouble-shooting and installing Veeder-Root, or similar, fuel monitoring and leak detection systems.

Not Relevant: Contractor has less than 3 years experience in trouble-shooting and installing Veeder-Root, or similar, fuel monitoring and leak detection systems.

Focus Area 2: Electrical/Sensor Wiring Relevant: Contractor has 5 or more years experience in reparing and replacing buried underground electrical and sensor wiring for underground storage tank (UST) monitoring systems.

Somewhat Relevant: Contractor has between 3 to 4 years experience in reparing and replacing buried underground electrical and sensor wiring for underground storage tank (UST) monitoring systems.

Not Relevant: Contractor has less than 3 years experience in reparing and replacing buried underground electrical and sensor wiring for underground storage tank (UST) monitoring systems.

Focus Area 3: Fuel Lines Relevant: Contractor has 5 or more years experience in repairing and replacing buried fuel lines for UST systems.

Somewhat Relevant: Contractor has between 3 to 4 years experience in repairing and replacing buried fuel lines for UST systems.

Not Relevant: Contractor has less than 3 years experience in repairing and replacing buried fuel lines for UST systems.

Focus Area 4: Magnitude Relevant: Magnitude of associated costs of project are $100,000.00 or greater.

Somewhat Relevant: Magnitude of associated costs of project is between $50,000.01 and $99,999.99.

Not Relevant: Magnitude of associated costs of project are less than $50,000.00

E. In evaluating past performance, the Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this RFP.

F. If the lowest priced evaluated technically acceptable offer is judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance confidence assessment, that offer represents the best value for the government and the evaluation process stops at this point. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers.

G. The government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest priced offer if the lowest priced offeror is judged to have a performance confidence assessment of "Satisfactory Confidence" or lower. In that event, the Source Selection Authority shall make an integrated assessment best value award decision.

H. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in Section L. Offeror’s may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

I. The government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective offerors. The government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest.

(End of Summary of Changes)